Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 07:27:36 AM
Your not paying attention. They also compel you to do something, like driving on the right side of the road or going the speed limit or registering your car, boat, business, whatever.

Not if I choose to not drive. Besides I was speeding and ran a stop sign on the way home from work. So that's a big fail.
Tell me one law that compels me to do something or go to jail for it?
There isn't one.

Quote from: blades on December 20, 2016, 07:37:09 AM
Not if I choose to not drive. Besides I was speeding and ran a stop sign on the way home from work. So that's a big fail.

How do you figure its a big fail? If a cop was there and you got a ticket, I'll bet you won't do it again.

Quote
Tell me one law that compels me to do something or go to jail for it?
There isn't one.

Once again the ACA

It compels you to get insurance, don't get insurance you get fined by the IRS, don't pay the fine guess where you wind up

Why do you think they made it a tax? So you could go to jail for non-compliance.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 07:41:50 AM
How do you figure its a big fail? If a cop was there and you got a ticket, I'll bet you won't do it again.

Once again the ACA

It compels you to get insurance, don't get insurance you get fined by the IRS, don't pay the fine guess where you wind up

Why do you think they made it a tax? So you could go to jail for non-compliance.

And there in lies the problem with it.
If you were a person that strives for maximum freedom you would reject this and every other law like it. But I think this is the only one...Thank god

like I said laws compel you to NOT do something....Or should in a free society.

Quote from: blades on December 20, 2016, 07:58:21 AM
And there in lies the problem with it.

That's the only problem with it? I can think of dozens of problems with it off the top of my head.

Quote
If you were a person that strives for maximum freedom you would reject this and every other law like it. But I think this is the only one...Thank god

This you or Beck talking? I've been involved in personality cults before. They're all the same. Get the minions to do the grunt work while they rake in the cash. Me? I've learned to choose my battles.

Quote
like I said laws compel you to NOT do something...

So even though you got the ACA example you insist your assertation is right.

Quote
.Or should in a free society.

A free society also requires logic and reason to overcome magical thinking. Magical thinking like, I know the ACA could send you to jail, but I'm going to ignore reality and keep making the same assertion

Quote from: blades on December 20, 2016, 07:20:55 AM
So laws compel me to NOT do something or go to jail for it. That sounds about right.

And still, you completely miss the point.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 08:13:32 AM
That's the only problem with it? I can think of dozens of problems with it off the top of my head.

This you or Beck talking? I've been involved in personality cults before. They're all the same. Get the minions to do the grunt work while they rake in the cash. Me? I've learned to choose my battles.

So even though you got the ACA example you insist your assertation is right.

A free society also requires logic and reason to overcome magical thinking. Magical thinking like, I know the ACA could send you to jail, but I'm going to ignore reality and keep making the same assertion

Never said it was the only problem, if my memory is correct my main point has always been that the fed gov has no authority under the Constitution to be involved in private HC.

Who is this Beck and what does he have to do with it?

Like I said , name one other law that compels a person to do something? I know you won't answer cause there ain't one that is Constitutional.

You seem to be defending the ACA, or am I mistaken

Quote from: blades on December 20, 2016, 08:23:00 AM
Never said it was the only problem, if my memory is correct my main point has always been that the fed gov has no authority under the Constitution to be involved in private HC.

Right, it has no authority, but it is.

Quote
Who is this Beck and what does he have to do with it?

You forgot??!!

This is the first post of the thread, you authored it:

Quote

Beware over-correction of the political pendulum
« on: December 13, 2016, 04:42:55 PM »
Quote
Beware over-correction of the political pendulum during the Donald Trump administration

Donald Trump's election victory can be seen as a political regression to the mean — that is, after eight years under a progressive regime, the American electorate is ready for a wildly different guiding philosophy in the Oval Office. Glenn Beck refers to this phenomenon as the "pendulum principle," and he explains to Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere that Obama's historically large impact on our federal government will result in an even greater swing in the opposite direction. In fact, Glenn predicts that Trump will alter the nature of the presidency more than any of his predecessors.

click link to hear the audio

http://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/beware-over-correction-of-the-political-pendulum-during-the-donald-trump-administration/

------------------------------------------------

Quote
Like I said , name one other law that compels a person to do something? I know you won't answer cause there ain't one that is Constitutional.

Don't have to. What your trying to do is called moving the goalpost. Name one. Name another. And then you'll want another....

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 08:33:17 AM

Don't have to. What your trying to do is called moving the goalpost. Name one. Name another. And then you'll want another....

For me this said it all and I know how taxed likes his chew toys.

Quote from: taxed on December 19, 2016, 08:35:38 PM
OK, If anyone wants to flush this turd, have at it...  He's slow-trolling...

What were we talking about?  Oh, yeah, global climate change, the role mankind has in it, and the role the issue played in the election.

MMCC "theory" is one of the most overplayed scams in modern history. Period. While the activities of mankind across this planet are most certainly causing some ecological issues, the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is NOT one of them. Frankly, there are plenty of REAL pollutions to research a solution for, without wasting half or more of our efforts trying to contain a gas emitted by every oxygen breathing organism on the planet. And don't EVEN get me started on cow farts!!

Meanwhile, the Progs made "going green" a significant plank in their platform this election cycle, and it hurt them. One, because "global warming" just is not an issue the average citizen is concerned about. Second, because their solutions hurt a whole lotta people. The leftists attack coal has directly cost thousands of people their jobs, gutted entire towns (which cost thousands more jobs), increased the price of energy across the board, ultimately punching a hole in everyone's pocketbook. And Hillary's answer was to run around promising to wipe out the entire coal industry. Frankly, Clinton is lucky the Trump campaign did not hit as hard as they could have on what the demoncrap's anti-coal policies have doe to the average consumer. IMO, if he had hit that topic hard, she would have been making her concession call several hours earlier. And there would be no talk of "but she won the popular vote!"

Hopefully in the coming years the whole "global warming" issue will be given a chance to die the ignoble death it deserves, and we won't have to listen to nonsense about CO2 and cow farts destroying the world. (And judging by the proposed appointments to EPA and Dept. of Energy, this is not a forlorn hope...)

One of my arguments against global warming is that we don't have enough information.

We have a little over a hundred years of acurate weather data,

The earth is billions of years old.

That's like trying to guess the outcome of a human life based on one day.

I'm sure the earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles in the past and will go through many more in the future.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 04:27:31 PM
One of my arguments against global warming is that we don't have enough information.

We have a little over a hundred years of acurate weather data,

The earth is billions of years old.

That's like trying to guess the outcome of a human life based on one day.

I'm sure the earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles in the past and will go through many more in the future.

I see two main aspects of the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX .
1st
The real time real and past events and do they have a negative effect of the environment. And since all data has been garbled due to to many lies ect ect it is a hard conversation to have.

2nd
Is the taxing and profiteering off of the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

I think if not for the #2 which drives #1 this would not be an issue.
Take the profit out of it then an honest debate can be had about the human effect on the planet.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 04:27:31 PM
One of my arguments against global warming is that we don't have enough information.

We have a little over a hundred years of acurate weather data,

The earth is billions of years old.

That's like trying to guess the outcome of a human life based on one day.

I'm sure the earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles in the past and will go through many more in the future.

There is one major question never addressed in any of the AGW/MMCC propaganda.

I am sure everyone is aware of the data gathered which shows a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperatures, often present in a graph like this one:



Looking backward, we see that there is a cycle of about 105,000 years, during which the Earth cools and enters a period of glaciation, and then warms into what geologists term a "period of inter glaciation."

So, the BIG question which is completely avoided by AGWers is "What causes those cycles?" What caused the earth to cool, 9 times in the last million years?  What caused the Earth to warm again?

These two questions are avoided by AGW because they cannot be answered. We do not know what triggers a period of glaciation. We do not know what triggers the beginning of a warming period. And the importance of not being able to answer what NATURALLY causes shifts in climate is we cannot POSSIBLY point to the modern era and say definitively "This time is different!"

How can we blame human activity for a difference which has not been properly determined, and may not even exist?

Quote from: zewazir on December 20, 2016, 05:14:02 PM
There is one major question never addressed in any of the AGW/MMCC propaganda.

I am sure everyone is aware of the data gathered which shows a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperatures, often present in a graph like this one:



Looking backward, we see that there is a cycle of about 105,000 years, during which the Earth cools and enters a period of glaciation, and then warms into what geologists term a "period of inter glaciation."

So, the BIG question which is completely avoided by AGWers is "What causes those cycles?" What caused the earth to cool, 9 times in the last million years?  What caused the Earth to warm again?

These two questions are avoided by AGW because they cannot be answered. We do not know what triggers a period of glaciation. We do not know what triggers the beginning of a warming period. And the importance of not being able to answer what NATURALLY causes shifts in climate is we cannot POSSIBLY point to the modern era and say definitively "This time is different!"

How can we blame human activity for a difference which has not been properly determined, and may not even exist?

One of the theories I heard was sunspots. What your looking at on the graph are cycles of sunspots. How it fits together I don't know, but that's what I heard.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 20, 2016, 05:19:21 PM
One of the theories I heard was sunspots. What your looking at on the graph are cycles of sunspots. How it fits together I don't know, but that's what I heard.

The only proven/observed sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years long.  If there is a longer cycle which encompasses the 11-year cycle, we do not have enough data to show it. We do know that some maximums are more active than others, and some minimum are less active than others. But to date there is nothing to indicate a cycle which tells us when a maximum is going to be greater.

Trying to associate sun spots, or any other solar activity to a geologic cycle which spans over 100,000 years is little more than pure speculation. We simply do not have enough data. Which is why trying to claim that the human factor is making a change in a process which we do not understand is very poor science.

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist To Advance Climate Change Plans

Quote
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House's efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration's line.

Read more at http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/